NIPC Law

Woolston Railway Station Artist Robert Sandham Licence CC BY 2,0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Melissa Clarke)  DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Lt d [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025) This was a claim by D W Windsor Ltd. ("DWW")  against Urbis Schréder Ltd  ("US") for the infringement of UK patents  GB 2 495 509 ("'509")  and GB 2 495 566 ("'566")  by the marketing and sale of Alinea Anti-Climb illuminated handrail and a counterclaim by US for the revocation of the patents on the grounds of want of novelty and obviousness. Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke tried the action and counterclaim on 17 and 18 Dec 2024 and handed down her judgment on 14 March 2025 (see  DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd  [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC)).  In para [124] of her judgment, the learned judge found that claims 1, 6 and 8 (as dependent on claim 7 and claim 1) of '509 were valid and cl...

Shell Petrol Station Author Ianmcm   Public Domain Courtesy of the author   Soutce Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Phillips and Birss and Lady Justice Whipple)  Ensygnia IP Ltd v Shell UK Oil Products Ltd and others [2024] EWCA Civ 1490 (5 Dec 2024) This was an appeal against the judgment of Miss Charlotte May KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court in  Ensygnia IP Ltd v Shell Oil Products Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat) of 26 June 2023.  That had been a claim by Ensygnia IP Ltd. ("Ensygnia") against Shell Oil Products Ltd, Shell International Petroleum Ltd. and Shell Information Technology BV ("Shell") for the alleged infringement of UK patent  GB 2,489,332 C2  and a counterclaim by Shell for revocation of the patent.  In para [300] of her judgment, Miss May held that the patent was invalid for added matter, extension of scope, and obviousness.  However, she also stated that the patent woul...

Etihad Stadium Author Cléria De Souza   Licence CC BY  2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court   (Mr Justice Meade)    AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and anothe r [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023) In  AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) (30 Jan 2023), the claimant, AIM Sport Vision ("AIM"), accused the defendants, Supponor OY and Supponor Ltd. ("Supponor") of infringing its  European patent (UK)  3 295 663 B1  for digitally overlaying an image with another image with their "SVB System". The invention for which that patent had been granted enables the superimposition of advertisements in TV broadcasts of sporting events that are different from the advertisements seen by spectators on billboards in the stadium. They are also different from advertisements appearing in other television broadcasts of the same game. Thus, the spectators in the stadium may see...